The Independent Police Complaints Commission will today release its report into the complaints raised by the families of 46 and 48 Lansdown Road involved in the Forest Gate Raids on 2nd June 2006. The report claims to investigate the justification for the operation, allegations of police misconduct / violence and treatment of family members when they were detained for questioning.
The IPPC investigation was given access to the intelligence upon which the police mounted the Forest Gate raids. However, the report does not scrutinise the attempts made by police to assess the quality of this intelligence.
The IPCC report also fails to offer a thorough investigation into the widespread leaks around the raids, attributed to police sources, which sought to undermine the families involved. NMP raised this issue in a submission to the Metropolitan Police Authority in October 2006.
Hanif Dogha, formerly of 48 Lansdown Road, who required stitches following being struck on the head by the butt of a gun during the raid said:
“I could have died from this injury yet the IPCC dismiss it as a ‘minor head injury’ and call for no further action. I’m deeply disappointed in this report - this is belittling and not a proper investigation”
The Kalam family of 46 Lansdown Road today said:
“Whilst we welcome the IPCC’s recommendation of a public apology, it is eight months too late. Words are not sufficient to compensate for the police brutality suffered, action is what is required.”
A spokesperson from NMP today said:
“ The importance of this case and the need for a thorough investigation cannot be minimized – Forest Gate is a landmark case, you need only look at the comments following the recent Birmingham Raids when people were asking “Is Birmingham the next Forest Gate?” There are fundamental questions which need answering about whether police acted appropriately. This report fails on all levels to address this and does not hold the police accountable. It undermines the continuing work on the ground on building trust in our communities – it is unsurprising that members of the muslim community feel a sense of injustice in their treatment from the police.
The threat of terrorism needs to be balanced with the threat to innocent victims of anti-terror operations, and the wider impact on communities “under suspicion”. This cannot be achieved while police operations repeatedly prove to be based on flawed intelligence. As in their investigation into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, the IPCC again fails to hold the police accountable for their failure to adequately verify their intelligence.
In effect, the IPCC report dismisses almost all of the 150 allegations by the eleven adults members from the raid houses, given independently, which are accounts of police misconduct and excessive physical force. If this is not a sufficient basis for the IPCC to recommend criminal proceedings into officers’ conduct, it raises the question what will ever be enough?
There has been an expectation that the police “will get away with this”. Forest Gate was seen as a test case to see if the processes of IPCC work in holding the police to account. The message from this report is that no action will be taken – you can be shot, assaulted, brutalized - the community effectively “terrorised” - and there will be no redress. The IPCC have failed in their duty to make recommendations of action that would make a difference for other families. What, therefore, is the purpose of the IPCC?”